7/11 robbery with robbers shot

[Drae]

I'm either retarded or just thinking differently but... uh... i agree with the half of the comments on youtube under this vid... the guard did his job, the idiots who tried robbery kiiiiinda deserved to get shot. *waits for getting flamed upon, duh*

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

You don't know this. You simply opined it based on your perception of the law and what went on. All you know is that the guy has a job as a security guard and that he intervened in the robbery. You don't know if he was on duty or not.

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.

Me, too! Last I checked, California still allowed for the use of lethal force to protect in defense of others (such as during an armed robbery). That this guy was a security guard may only account for why he had a gun.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In Calif. Guards are NOT authorized beyond their client. Armed guards in uniform, not on their post, get arrested.

So you're saying that in California armed guards must drive to and from their duty stations in "civvies," then change into their uniform, bring out the bat belt, and load their firearm only after they arrive at the duty location -- and then have to reverse the process before leaving the client's property to drive home?

Doesn't sound right. California Penal Code:

(5) Uniformed security guards, regularly employed and compensated
in that capacity by persons engaged in any lawful business, and
uniformed alarm agents employed by an alarm company operator, while
actually engaged in protecting and preserving the property of their
employers or on duty or en route to or from their residences or their
places of employment, and security guards and alarm agents en route
to or from their residences or employer-required range training.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit cities and
counties from enacting ordinances requiring alarm agents to register
their names.

 

[joed]

I love a story with a happy ending.

Another example of a failure in the victim selection process. Not quite as bad as trying to hold up a barroom full of off-duty cops, but close.

Hapy ending? They're still alive, should be dead.

 

[Marco Califo]

Civvies are not required. Most drive their cars. Armed guards riding buses in uniform have caused issues. That is a grey area. My point is you cannot walk into Walmart and start shooting. This guard workef for 7/11 to comply with a city ordinance. Since the question was, maybe the guard stopped on his way to work. No. That is NOT this case here.
Also, tou need to be very aware of the different "roles" you just cited. Each has different rights and rules. Armed guard is one catogory. Armored car guards is a completely different with different rules (from transportion bodies (they are authorized to draw on you if you approach an ATM they are servicing). They also get killed more often. The relevant group here is Private Patrol Operators which are security guard companies who employ armed and unarmed guards. Alarm services and is another, and locksmiths, and repossessors.
Perhaps he was allowed to sit in his car. IMO that is stupid and led to the shooting, which did not need to happen. I do applaude his calmness and shooting skill. I do not agree with his strategy or tactics.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Also, tou need to be very aware of the different "roles" you just cited.

In the context of this discussion, I don't need to be aware of the different roles in the section I cited, because it's an exception to a general rule and ALL the categories listed fall under the exception. They ALL may be armed when traveling to or from their place of work, and when traveling to employer-required range training.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Since the question was, maybe the guard stopped on his way to work. No. That is NOT this case here.

There have been a number of linked stories and I may have missed one or you may know because you are in the area, but I can't remember seeing anything to indicate positively the guard was assigned to this location.
The only hint I see is:

As the security guard approached the entrance to the store, he saw both men had jumped over the front counter and began to rummage through the cashier's pockets.

https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/guard-thwarts-robbers-fake-guns-mine-real-video

The article you cited, from blaze.com, is, I believe, simply providing amateur analysis of the video and the statement the 'stores armed guard' is simply an assumption based on the video. It may also be possible the guard had just arrived to post and had not entered as his shift had not yet started. There are many reasonable explanations for him being in his vehicle with the limited information I have provided. I am not entirely convinced he was in his vehicle. He may have been walking an exterior patrol. None of the sources on this seem that credible or to be reporting any more than assumptions based on the video.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

In my state everyone who gets paid to wear a gun gets lumped together. In some ways it is very stupid, in others it is nice. Working a nice job as an armed driver and need some extra money? Easy to find a few hours standing around a waffle house making half-way decent money.

Not surprised Californian's saw fit to complicate things.

 

[Metal god]

I did armed security in CA for several years when I was younger . I have two different opinions on this whole thing . First is Marco in general is correct in what he's been saying . When in security guard training they emphasize over and over you are to observe and report only . Your firearm is there to protect your self and not anyone else . As a private security guard you do not have the same protections as LEO . I only worked for one company but it was clear they did not want us confronting any armed robbers at any time unless we are selves were in harms way and we were to do everything in are powers not to let that happen . Also , you know how you here about states that have stand your ground laws . CA is actually the opposite , It's my understanding as a victim in CA you are first obligated to do everything you can to deescalate the situation to include running away . How this thinking effects this case time will only tell .

I don't think the clerk has a claim but in CA the robbers may have good ones . Not only against the security guard but the company he works for . Remember this happened in CA where guns are taboo . I don't think for a second 2/3 of a jury wont find that the guard escalated the incident .

That all said when it comes to did the guard do the morally right thing ? I say heck yes he did . Should he have said stop or put the gun down before shooting ? Maybe but I've done enough self defense classes now over the years to know that when the bad guy's gun is already out and ready to fire the 21 foot rule goes out the window . At that point there's only a split second between living and dying . Not sure in that circumstance you want to be advertising you're there or what you're about to do . Then again the guard really should have never went into the store .

I'd be very surprised if the guard and security company don't get sued . Not saying the robbers are going to win but the law suite just seems like a given to me . Especially if it can be shown the other robber was unarmed which at this point we don't know . So if he was unarmed and it appears the clerk was no longer in danger . It would appear the guard just leaned over and shot the other guy for no specific reason . As I stated before , private security does not have the same protections LEO do in those types of circumstances . They call the badge a shield for a reason .

 

[hdaackda]

cool dude. a job well done,

 

[Lohman446]

I'm of the overall general opinion that bad actors should be given ample opportunity to avoid the loss of life. With that being said once you have "cleared leather" with a deadly weapon the margin of error is extremely low and if I make an error in this case it is going to be in favor of the defense of myself or others or, if I'm a security agent, the "innocent" party.

Why waive around a plastic toy gun? If you are going to use a fake gun to rob someone your much better off just showing the gun in your belt and then keeping your hand away from it. Obviously you don't have the intent or means to shoot someone. Don't waive around a gun if you are not willing and able to carry through with its use.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Why waive around a plastic toy gun? If you are going to use a fake gun to rob someone your much better off just showing the gun in your belt and then keeping your hand away from it. Obviously you don't have the intent or means to shoot someone. Don't waive around a gun if you are not willing and able to carry through with its use.

Simple, waving it around looks a lot more threatening/intimidating and makes it look like you are willing to use it, versus something tucked in your pants. It is all about presentation and intimidation to get compliance. It works on a regular basis.

 

[SaxonPig]

I got fired by 7-11 in 1975 for shooting an armed robber.

 

[briandg]

Omg, dude, you're old!

Where did that take place?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Omg, dude, you're old!

Either that, or you're young, dude.

Everything is relative.

 

[Ignition Override]

"Active Self Protection": Many, many Dozens of actual security camera videos are shown, from the US and Brazil.
Do you guys not know about this website?

The narrator first briefs the situation, then later describes what the good guy did right or wrong for many different situations. The good guy usually has a firearm.

Youtube. Where else?