7/11 robbery with robbers shot

@Aguila Blanca

http://www.bsis.ca.gov/
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/about_us/laws/pssact.shtml
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/firearms_manual.pdf
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/incidentreprt.pdf
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Br...nType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1

Another thing I think a lot of you who have never actually done that work don't understand are the Employers (Security company paying the guard) policy's and directives, and client's (7/1 company's) specific instructions. Neither of them want this to happen. The general instructions are to release the cash and not have any one get hurt. [De-escalate, which is also the state doctrine]. 7/11 has a very effective method of currency control (a drop safe and timed change draw). It is impossible to get more than $500 in a 7/11 stickup. Since the dollar loss is controlled, they DO NOT WANT confrontation. They instruct the clerks to hand it over if robbed, They also give cops free coffee, sodas free.

I worked banks, where the bank manager ignored the two armed guards guarding the payday millions (literally), until we calmly, silently and slyly moved into positions, one behind and one off to one side of an idiot who can in on a sweltering summer Friday afternoon, wearing black leather and a motorcycle helmet and full Visor with a large bag slung over one shoulder. We also had to scan both entrances and the parking lot as this was unfolding. The rider on the storm cashed his paycheck and left. The manager went crazy on us for "acting like cowboys". We told her to call our office. End for her issue.
The next week, said biker came back in and apologized and understood, then, what we were doing and why, and acknowledged his outfit as unwise. [A footnote, our actions that day in the 1980's are probably no longer "within current regulation".]
Of course this guard will not be hired for crowded lobbies at big cash handling banks. But imagine if these guys, two bad and one in uniform, Larry, Mo, and Curly Joe, played this out in one of those bank lobbies.

The doctrine in California is for armed security to be an effective deterrent, so that the crime does not go down in the first place.
This guard seems to have been employed for just this 7/11 as his client. He is supposed to be seen, look sharp, and deter. That is his job. He is not allowed to intimidate. Only necessary actions in an emergency is allowed, ultimately to act preserve life (not property anymore). Was he supposed to stand inside, or outside? Was he on the phone with a galpal, or eating cheese burgers in his armed guard mobile. The two bleeders didn't seem to know the place had an armed guard: THAT MEANS HE WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB. He may have felt he needed to bust in shooting to make up for why ever he was not at his post. Ok, he may have been told to watch the parking lot too. But The perps had NO CLUE he was there.

I may reinstate by credential (again). The Firearms permit comes in handy at my gun club when I renew. I have looked up the instructor who I last had, and may try to talk to him this Saturday, because I want to here his take on this. Videos like this one get used in the classes, always as topics of what not to do.
 
Regarding 38 or 357: For your permit they are the same thing. You qualify with a 38 or 357, and you get the same qualification: 38/357. 30 years ago, when revolvers were popular, we all bought 357 magnum revolvers, buy generally carried 38 Special ammunition in them. No security companies or clients allowed 357 magnum ammunition. The gun was fine as long as the ammunition as 38 Spc.
Some places issued SW model 10's, and 5 bullets for the six cylinder. The hammer had to rest on an empty chamber, so that the gun would not fischarge if dropped on the hammer. For that reason you can no longer bring a Model 10 to California, as the DOJ has a lisy of firearms OK to buy and own in California. Also the bullets that company issued you 5 of were FMJ (non expanding).
So 38 or 357? Usually it was BOTH. 357 revolver, with 38 Special ammo.
 
Marco Califo said:
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/about_us/laws/pssact.shtml
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/firearms_manual.pdf
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/incidentreprt.pdf
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Bro...ault)&bhcp=1
Click to expand...
Okay, there's a regulation (which does not have the title you originally cited). You stated that the guard in the video acted in violation of this standard. I asked which specific provisions of the standard he violated. You haven't answered the question.

Marco Califo said:
The doctrine in California is for armed security to be an effective deterrent, so that the crime does not go down in the first place.
This guard seems to have been employed for just this 7/11 as his client. He is supposed to be seen, look sharp, and deter. That is his job. He is not allowed to intimidate. Only necessary actions in an emergency is allowed, ultimately to act preserve life (not property anymore). Was he supposed to stand inside, or outside? Was he on the phone with a galpal, or eating cheese burgers in his armed guard mobile. The two bleeders didn't seem to know the place had an armed guard: THAT MEANS HE WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB. He may have felt he needed to bust in shooting to make up for why ever he was not at his post. Ok, he may have been told to watch the parking lot too. But The perps had NO CLUE he was there.
Click to expand...
Again -- where in state law or regulation is this doctrine you refer to spelled out? Please provide the statute or regulation number and the section you think he violated.
 
I always wondered why teachers, parents, even police advised the public "just give them what they want" as this made no sense to me. Then on 9-11-01 that advice was put to the test on four separate airplanes and everyone on those planes died.

I guess that was bad advice.

**

We are also making the assumption that the guard was assigned to this store as "on site security." He might have been in a car with a set of places to check on during his shift. When I was a rental unit, other than the "night deposit drop escort," I spent my 8 hours making rounds.

The guard might have also been outside assisting a customer, having a smoke, or escorting a trouble-maker off the grounds. It is unfounded, at this point, to assume he was goofing off out there.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Aquila, but you need to be able to click and read, and cognitively process information. Or show me your firearms permit.
I looked for the part where it says It is OK for you to walk in shooting. ?That's not there¿ :eek:
Anyway I do not take orders from you, and your too tight panties tone does nothing for me. I done with you, personally. But I certainly will discuss facts and issues about this incident, just not with you.
 
Moderator, clean up on isle 7. LOL

Calm down guys. I'm new here but I hate to see tempers flare.....that's why I left FB and came back to discussion forums. Please smooth it over....we all need to stop taking dissent personally and learn how to get along better (remind me when I get upset as sometimes I do too).
 
Marco Califo said:
Sorry Aquila, but you need to be able to click and read, and cognitively process information. Or show me your firearms permit.
I looked for the part where it says It is OK for you to walk in shooting. ?That's not there¿
Anyway I do not take orders from you, and your too tight panties tone does nothing for me. I done with you, personally. But I certainly will discuss facts and issues about this incident, just not with you.
Click to expand...
You are the person who made a statement that the security guard violated provisions of California regulations. The way this forum operates, it is the responsibility of the person making a claim to provide supporting documentation. Providing a list of links (just one of which leads to a 95-page document) and expecting us to read them to try to figure out what you're referring to is not the way it works. You made the statement "not complying with the Cal. Budiness and Profession Code for armed guards" (which is, again, not even the correct title for the regulation), so it's your responsibility to explain what provisions of the regulation he violated.

Marco Califo said:
I looked for the part where it says It is OK for you to walk in shooting. ?That's not there¿
Click to expand...
Did you find a section that says it's NOT okay to walk in shooting? Laws don't generally tell us what's legal, they tell us what isn't legal. Can you find a California law that says it's legal to walk into a McDonald's and buy a Big Mac and a soda? If you dig, though, I'm sure you can find a law that says you can't order and eat a meal in a restaurant and then walk out without paying. You probably won't find a law that says it's legal to stop for a red light, but you will find one that says it's illegal to proceed through a red light without stopping.
 
Active Self Protection review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVNE_38ZExI

I loved the opener about the "pre attack clues." A few years back I worked a stop and rob gig and developed a set of rules for when such a thing happened to me. I decided that anyone entering with a hood pulled over their head would cause me to go into "Defcon 3" and I'd order them to remove the hood from their head or leave.

It was New York Reload on that gig (pocket and ankle carry).
 
The robber he fired at with his last shot was not the one we saw with the gun, was not the one who said "It's fake," and the video doesn't show us what the other robber was doing when the guard shot him. The kid in the blue hoodie was the one who said "It's fake," and the guard didn't shoot at him again after he said that.

That said, if I'm facing two robbers, at least one of whom was flashing a gun, I'm not likely to just say, "Oh, okay then" if he tells me his gun is fake. That's a good way to get yourself shot.
 
The store armed guard had been sitting in his vehicle.

"The problem — for the crooks, at least — was that the store’s armed security guard was sitting in his vehicle and saw the whole thing going down."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...ers-but-what-he-tells-crooks-is-the-best-part
Sitting in your vehicle at a post, on-duty, only is appropriate at construction sites, or warehouses (when they wont give you inside access), or for supervisors in marked vehicles. I cannot think of other circumstances where thay want to pay you to sit in your car. Cell phones, burgers, radios are inherent distractions. Being inside a vehicle negates the intended deterrent effect, and enables this needless chain of events.
The BSIS investigation normally run 6 months to over a year, longer if he wont file the required shooting incident report. That happened when a white BART guard shot a black "patron", and said he reached for his tazer, but . . . His attorney advised 5th amendment/do not report. The security company also requires the report, and he never worked again. His credentials were revoked. There were protests, demonstrations, public uproar galore.
Details and legal aspects will trickle out.
I believe the perps deserved to die. However, I also believe the guard could be legally and correctly charged with attempted homicide. The 3rd shot is current a "leader", was it avoidable? Simply moving on the floor is not an active threat, certainly not on the level of raising a gun (which would be justied)
every minute detail will be examined repeatedly by experts. Without a doubt there will ramifications.
 
Marco Califo said:
Sitting in your vehicle at a post, on-duty, only is appropriate at construction sites, or warehouses (when they wont give you inside access), or for supervisors in marked vehicles. I cannot think of other circumstances where thay want to pay you to sit in your car.
Click to expand...
Except perhaps at my bank. A few years ago the branch I use was robbed twice within six months. Shortly thereafter they started having a guard posted -- but they didn't want him inside. His assignment was to alternate between sitting in his car in the parking lot, and to wander around the parking lot.

Another bank across town had an armed guard posted outside the front door. He was always there when I went to the post office, which is two doors down the street. I never saw him enter the building.

For the past year or so, neither my bank nor any other bank in town (small town) has had any security presence other than cameras. I suppose if there's another robbery we'll see guards posted again ... for awhile.
 
*scratches head*
Guy did his job. Someone will presumably whine for him opening fire first or something.
 
I worked one bank, allegedly robbed 3 times. But the bank company (not the branch employees) wanted me inside and behind the teller line. That unusual directive was because, they suspected, correctly it turned out, that there really had been no robberies, but the bank employees themselves were stealing money and making up the robberies. Unfortunately, that is very common. I was wearing a bullet resistent vest, and giving customers the evil eye, because they did not tell me that the reason for my presence was to prevent the branch employees from "robbing" their employer. It worked. Whatever the need for cash was, got stymied by me. The staff turned over 100% in one day, and I started my next semester in day classes.
Years later, working as a corporate bank branch auditor (and unarmed), I was in a branch (Wilshire and Fairfax in LA). I was about to leave, heard noise, turned to see someone jumping the teller line, and other persons of intetest in the lobby. This was about to turn into a hostage situation that I did not want to participate in. I calmy walked/snuck out the back door, and down the ramp to the parking booth, I got on the phone to LA's finest dispatch, and followed their instructions. They did NOT send SWAT. Seemed like 10 minutes before one cop walked around and peeked into windows. Turns out they did not want to create a hostage situation if there was not one already. In retrospect I now believe their actions and mine were prudent. I called audit chief. And he immediately told me to audit the post robbery procedures. Yes, they did exist, and the objective was to prevent employee lo$$e$.
The point is the armed guard business is about deterence/prevention. The 7/11 guy did not deter/prevent. His actions allowed and caused a needless shooting. He got his 15 minutes of fame.
He may end up getting 15 years. That is where the game is won or lost. Guards are never free to do as they please
 
I know of multiple posts where armed guards are stationed out of sight. It isn't that uncommon. Armed guards are not always used for deterrence. The same behavior that deters criminals will often make customers uncomfortable.

and giving customers the evil eye
Click to expand...

7/11, bank, gated type residential, corporate office, club, and many more places armed guards are used. All are different.
 
LASD Website

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ComptonSheriffStation/posts/?ref=page_internal

A press release or article is here. Only on Facebook. They post there, but not on the LASD website. Nothing new in the LASD article (dated i/19/18), but confirms the guard was sitting in his car, and an investigation is ongoing. I also commented on the LASD Facebook article with my concerns, and sent it to the Station.

I could not make out any company insignia on guards jacket patches. If I could I would call the company, and ask them if he was supposed to be in his car, and why.
 
I also commented on the LASD Facebook article with my concerns, and sent it to the Station.

I could not make out any company insignia on guards jacket patches. If I could I would call the company, and ask them if he was supposed to be in his car, and why.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they'll be able to handle the investigation without your assistance, but I'm sure they appreciate your willingness to help.
 
It takes a village...
No, it is every village has a..
IDK, something about a village.

I haven't read every article, but what I have read does not clearly state the guard was even posted to the 7/11. Possible he was just stopping before or after his shift?
 
In Calif. Guards are NOT authorized beyond their client. Armed guards in uniform, not on their post, get arrested. They are not sworn public servants authorized to act beyond wht thay are paid to do. So no, he was not off duty passing by. If that were the situation he would be behind bars. It really fascinates me how people without knowledge or experience love to opine or argue about things they know nothing about, and cannot add anything other than noise.
I got my coffee at my hometown 7/11, and talked to the longtime employees. They had heard of "Avalon". BTW 7/11's are often owned and operated by extended south asian families who often own sevetal stores. 1. "No, not sit in car." 2. Cash in drawers are controlled. 3. They did not express any interest in being involved in a shootout, want to meet that guard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top